Replies

Since 1868 there are only two types of U.S. citizenship: born and naturalized.

And I have one, too. That’s also allowed, right?

My theory doesn't necessarily conflict with yours, if you accept mine along with yours.

My theory is that the natural born clause in Article II is not intended as a definition of a type of citizen, as that would belong in Article I section 8. Instead, it is a only a qualification for the office, along with the age and residency qualification. Using the common understanding of the terms at the time, and coupling this with the intent stated in the Preamble that the Constitution was established to secure liberty to the People and their Posterity, it makes sense that the Frames meant the Presidency only for the Posterity of We the People.

This is a tighter requirement than simply citizen or naturalized citizen, just like citizen at least 35 years old is a tighter requiremeet than just citizen. So, natural born is an understood requirement for office, not a Constitutional definition of who is a citizen.

That's my theory. Don't bother with the retort of getting a court to agree with me. No court post-Obama ever would. Who knows what a pre-Obama court might have done.

-PJ

I have no problem at all with anyone having their own theory and using it as a guide for who they believe is eligible to be president or vice president and who is not eligible.

Your theory is in line with the U.S. government’s position in the landmark Supreme Court decision from 1898, U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. The government’s attorneys asked the Supreme Court: “Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth? To hold that Wong Kim Ark is a natural-born citizen within the ruling now quoted, is to ignore the fact that at his birth he became a subject of China by reason of the allegiance of his parents to the Chinese Emperor.”—Government’s Briefs US v Wong Kim Ark

"Since 1868 there are only two types of U.S. citizenship: born and naturalized. And I have one, too. That’s also allowed, right? My theory doesn't necessarily conflict with yours, if you accept mine along with yours. My theory is that the natural born clause in Article II is not intended as a definition of a type of citizen, as that would belong in Article I section 8. Instead, it is a only a qualification for the office, along with the age and residency qualification. Using the common understanding of the terms at the time, and coupling this with the intent stated in the Preamble that the Constitution was established to secure liberty to the People and their Posterity, it makes sense that the Frames meant the Presidency only for the Posterity of We the People. This is a tighter requirement than simply citizen or naturalized citizen, just like citizen at least 35 years old is a tighter requiremeet than just citizen. So, natural born is an understood requirement for office, not a Constitutional definition of who is a citizen. That's my theory. Don't bother with the retort of getting a court to agree with me. No court post-Obama ever would. Who knows what a pre-Obama court might have done. -PJ "

Totally agree. Natural Born Citizen is the level of purity of citizenship not a "type" of citizenship. Also the historical record for the definition of NBC is born to two citizen parents.

People keep looking for laws and court cases to support a completely illogical position. Someone born of one citizen parent on foreign soil or someone born and raised by two citizen parents in Dallas Texas are clearly not the same thing. Both are citizens at birth but not even close to the same level of purity.